Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore-

Many of us are familiar with the popular satirical comedian, Mr. Brown, aka Lim Kin Mun. A well-known figure with a solid fanbase from spreading radical ideas about political judgements and revealing sides of policies otherwise shrouded in mystery by the Government in fear of ridicule, his posts on his blogsite "mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore" are woven throughout with blatant pokes at Singapore's social and economic system.

Most of us Singaporeans recognise our humble island country as a country of democracy, a country that allows and promotes free speech, a country where the people decide who leads the country and who doesn't. However, are we really the 'masters' of this country? Is democracy really prevailent in Singapore? Most will answer a defininte 'yes'. Oh, look at the elections, look at the free speech campaigns. If that is so, why are political figures like Chee Soon Juan arrested on a daily basis for voicing their insinuations in public? The notion of the government being an authoritarian one has never appealed to the minds of the masses. This, once again, is the inculcation of the prevailent mindset that whatever the Singaporean government does for us is the correct thing, is the best way. Political and social unrest are dispelled by mental barriers erected from within by the Government through their numerous fiscal policies and social laws set.

Mr. Brown's column in the Today newspaper reached its expiration date when the Government ordered its removal from the newspaper due to overly-critical comments on the Government's progress scheme and for what the government presumed as deliberate mocking. Putting it simply - this was an obvious show of Govermental restriction on political commentary on the Internet. If there was nothing to hide, if Singapore IS really a democratic society, why place such unfair and unjustified restrictions on the people? Ideas stem from creativity, which is in turn affected on a large scale by issues revolving the social structure of the nation. Such strict regulations on political comentary should be abhored. It is a complete contradiction to what the Government proposes on a daily basis. Why should citizens of DEMOCRATIC Singapore abide by the unfair jurisdiction of the law, on the topic of politics? The most obvious reason would be that the Government's achievements in economy and stability have exalted the masses to an extent that inner desires are dominated by psychological awe. Rephrased, it simply means that such succeses have impacted the way Singaporeans think about the structure of society as a whole.

I feel that it is vital to accept the fact that Mr. Brown is widely read and watched. His ideas spread like wildfire due to their 'catch-on' nature. The Media Development Authority's control has been slowly extending, from restrictions on what is broadcasted on television and radio, to further regulations on what internet users can upload and say online. Mr. Brown's position is thus naturally threatened by this encroaching tiger; however, no decisive blow can be initiated due to strong support from the masses - if something was done which could be defined as controversial, it could tip the balance in brown's favour, lowering the prestige of the government. Thus, the people act as a human shield towards the poised siege weapons of the powerful govermnet.

Although the government may be right in a sense to restrict the outflow of media to safeguard stability and ensure prevention of corruption, media containing a suitable level of criticism towards political issues should be allowed. Blanket-approval has been given to annihilate all media which place the government in an obviously bad light. We, as the people who are crucial towards this issue, should take a stand and thoroughly think - political commentary, does it do harm, or can it be safe to broadcast?

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

The President's Star Charity Show - something most Singaporeans are familiar with, with it incorporating numerous television celebrities and aired every year, for the sake of charity. Many Singaporeans punctually tune in to watch this heartstopping and exhiliarating programme, as they watch their favourite television stars attempt the unthinkable, far from what they are used to: actors and actresses safe within the film set, acting out their assigned roles, all within a danger-free environment. These seemingly death-defying stunts thus bring in the cash for the charities, with stay-at-home Singaporeans applauding the bravery and commitment of these celebrities and donating their hard-earned money for a better cause. However, this raises a controversial question - is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public's compassion for more generous donations?



We couch-potatoes view the programme as a never-failing source of entertainment, with artistes from the various industries making their long-awaited appearance to charm their fans with their amazing talents, such as music. We tend to forget the main purpose of organizing such an event - no, it isn't to satisfy consumer demand for thrill and action. It is for the purpose of raising funds for charity, to aid those that are in the midst of financial turmoil, and desperately need this help. Many a time when we dial in to donate money, it is due to the challenging act that the artiste just performed, which leaves us in awe and compells us to donate money so as to "support charity and the event". In reality, who are we actually supporting? The poor and the unfortunate, or the artiste? We as Singaporeans should really ponder upon this issue. Such a mindset is rampant in Singaporean society, where the notion of 'talent should be rewarded' is strongly put forward by the Singaporean Government, resulting in the subconscious inculcation of such a frame of mind in the masses through various implemented policies and organized events.

The adoption of the correct mindset is important and extremely vital towards the healthy and continuous growth of society. Such a way of thinking can spill over to many other aspects of society. The correction of this is important. Aiming towards having a heart should top the list of priorities, instead of judging something's value with extrinsic thoughts in mind.

Where there is an actual need for these artistes to perform stunts in order to milk the compassion of the audience, I personally feel that with the current situation, this need is not justified. There are many other ways of expoliting one's compassion, such as showing clips of those unfortunate residents in Singaporean society, and this alone will be able to bring in the cash from many Singaporeans. However, to maximize profit, exciting, thrilling shows can be performed in order to excite those that overlook the need for these unfortunate residents to recieve financial aid. With reference to the question - do artistes have to perform to milk GREATER donations? Absolutely. With the current mindset predominant in Singaporean society, without such acts that stimulate the subconsious desire to donate hard-earned money, donation ratings will definitely plummet. This exemplifies the need for Singapore to work towards having a heart. The best way to start its cultivation, is to do it right at home, right in Singapore.

Such an event can serve to benefit all three parties - namely the audience, the performers and the beneficiaries. To start of, let us talk about the performers. For them to carry out such dangerous and over-the-edge stunts helps to develop an intrinisic feeling of accomplishment and happiness, that they did their part for the social benefit of the beneficiaries, and that their act was pivotal to the well-being of these people in the near future. For the audience, a greater and deeper insight into the plight of such beneficiaries taps on Aristotle's Pathos of 'Rhetoric'. The greater the exposure, the higher the chances of compassion welling up to form a vast flow of donations. Extrinsic effects aside, such an approach generates ideas in the people- that there was a possible channel for them to utilize in order to help the unfortunate in their own way, besides the Star Charity show. For the beneficiaries...let us say that the benefits are obvious.